We have our first stolen bid with the A-10. Shouldn’t change much yet but there are a lot of bubble teams still playing.
Do we buy that we're safely in?
- Thread starter pseudonym
- Start date
Hahahaha. Not sure if you’ve been keeping track, but we’ve made 2 NCAA tournaments as an at-large in the the past 15 god damned years. 13 of those 15 have been a 68 team field. Haven’t won an NCAA tournament game since the George W. Bush administration.
Dayton or not….if our name is called on Sunday, you just point to whichever way is west, and I’ll be happy to oblige you.
By using the term 'play in', you are saying the winner of that game has played into the tournament. Therefore, the game is not part of the tournament and the losing team didn't make the tournament.
This isn't difficult to understand- how you view the game is literally in the term you keep using to identify the game.
Lunardi has 28 p5 schools in the tournament as of right now, so 23 p5 at large bids.
There are 69 p5 schools right now.
I have no idea why you think every p5 school should have a very reasonable expectation to get an at large bid into the tournament.
Also, the nit is not generally for teams that are barely above .500.
...it seems like you haven't payed attention to college basketball since the early 00s. On a related note, 20 wins is no longer some magical threshold for a p5 school to expect a bid.
If you don’t suck in basketball and you are a P5 school, making the tournament is a very reasonable expectation. Making the play in game doesn’t suck, but it’s not a major goal of your your program if you are decent.
Whatever, if being a bubble team is what your expectations are, you aren’t going to have a very good P5 program. it’s making a crappy bowl game in football.
Not sure if you’ve noticed, but our basketball program hasn’t been “decent” since about 2008 other than one or two years under Howland. Jans has brought the level up to decent and has us making the tournament in consecutive years for the first time in a decade and a half. I’ll take it.
I agree, I’m not knocking Jan’s. I’m just speaking in general about what expectations are for a P5 program. he’s succeeded this year and has improved from last year.
They're called "play-in games" for a reason. You're playing to get in the tournament.
No…. You’re in the tournament. The last four at-larges just have an additional round to maneuver. But still in the tournament.
...but they aren't called that.
...do you also think that teams that play in the conference tournament game on Wednesday are playing to get into the conference tournament?
Hell, most of the bracket pools have not been requiring anyone to pick those games.
Only at Mississippi State would there be fans stridently arguing that something the team accomplished, they didn’t actually accomplish. It’s like any success we have is bad because it would prevent them from b itching as much.
In basketball, it's not the P5, it's the P6 because the Big East has to be included. That's 80 teams. Six of them will get auto bids by winning their tournaments. The remaining 74 are fighting for one of the 36 at large berths along with mid-major teams outside the P6. Give the mids their at large bids and in reality it's probably about 28-30 bids. To not be a bubble team (a potential Dayton team), you're now looking at maybe the top 22-25 at large teams out of those 74. So your contention is that our program, with 12 NCAA appearances in 112 seasons of playing, should expect to be one of those 22-25 teams, putting us in the top third of P6 basketball programs? We rarely finish in the top third of our own conference. Going to be difficult to be a top third team nationally.
Do I wish our seed was better? Yes. Am I a little disappointed that we are on the bubble this year? Yes, I thought we would be in the 7-10 range. But as long as we are in, I am happy.
As for the 'play in' as you insist on calling it, would you rather be in Dayton or hosting a game as a 1 seed in the NIT? No rational fan would answer the latter.
No one's arguing that we didn't make the play-in games last year. The discussion is whether or not making those games count as making the tournament if you lose.
Seems like the older folks here don't consider the play-in games to be "making the tournament" while today's participation trophy generation does....
17 off with this take.
I am 43 and was constantly referred to as 'the participation trophy' generation back in the early 90s.
That over used insult has been around for decades now and has been applied to multiple generations.
There is no 'today's participation generation' in this discussion because almost nobody here is part of that generation(Z).
The poster you quoted was saying it's 17ing pathetic that MSU fans argue that MSU didn't make the tournament last seasons since we lost in the first game, which is part of the 'first four'.
Jans led the team to a tournament bid last season. MSU's name was called as an at large bid.
^ that is reality.
Leave it to the two dumbest entities in all of collegiate athletics (the NCAA, and Mississippi State fans) to create this conundrum.
Again, if you’re going to have a 68 team field, the First Four should all be for the final seeds - the 16 seeds. Doing 2 games for the 16-seeds and 2 games for 11-seeds makes absolutely zero sense. Dumbest idea of all time. Making #61 play #64 to see who is the 43rd best team, and making #62 play #63 to see who is the 44th best team is the height of absurdity.
Rank the teams 1-68. 61-68 are the worst teams. Make them play each other for the last 4 slots. Far too complex for the NCAA, evidently.
Then you have our fans….who would argue that even if were in Dayton and made it all the way to the Final Four from there….that we didn’t actually even make the NCAA tournament because we wouldn’t have gotten into the old 64-team format.
I can't believe you are so stupid that I'm going to have to agree with glfr. That's how bad of a take this is. Hang it in the louvre.
Under this contrived logic, why does it even matter if you win or lose? If you are in Dayton as an at-large, you would not have made the previous 64 team field at all. Doesn’t matter how much or little you make of the opportunity - you could win the whole damn thing. You’re still an NIT team any year before 2011. That’s how comparing Dayton to the old format actually works. See how dumb that is to say out loud?
I was born in the early 80’s, so I totally get this. Back in my day (before 1985), the field was 32 teams. That was a real man’s tournament. Nothing but participation trophies these days for everyone that’s a 5-seed and above. I’ve written many letters to all our AD’s to rip down every NCAA tourney banner in the Hump from the years we didn’t win the SEC tourney (except 2014), because we would never have made what I refer to as the REAL tournament. But you know, Cohen-Stricklin-Selmon are all from that damn participation trophy generation.
That’s fuzzy math. You have to be a top 25 team to mke the ncaa tournament as an at large bid ? BS. LOL
1) If Dayton is considered part of the tournament, then everyone needs to stop referring to them as "play-in games." That's literally what ESPN calls them.
2) Since they're considered play-in games, my personal opinion is that you have to win in Dayton to "make the tournament".
3) I agree with the earlier poster that said the Dayton games should be played by the 65 - 68 seeds. By not setting it up this way, the NCAA is admitting that they're play-in games and not part of the official tournament. If an AQ from the Big Sky or Ivy League is "guaranteed a spot in the tournament" and gets a #16 seed, but the 7th team in the SEC has to play in Dayton, that pretty much says the Dayton games aren't part of THE tournament.
4) All you participation trophy mother-17ers can kiss my old, crochety azz and get off my lawn!! **
2) Since they're considered play-in games, my personal opinion is that you have to win in Dayton to "make the tournament".
3) I agree with the earlier poster that said the Dayton games should be played by the 65 - 68 seeds. By not setting it up this way, the NCAA is admitting that they're play-in games and not part of the official tournament. If an AQ from the Big Sky or Ivy League is "guaranteed a spot in the tournament" and gets a #16 seed, but the 7th team in the SEC has to play in Dayton, that pretty much says the Dayton games aren't part of THE tournament.
4) All you participation trophy mother-17ers can kiss my old, crochety azz and get off my lawn!! **
That's a lot of typed letters when you could have just taken a **** and told us you did so for the intelligent thoughts you imparted.
You're just objectively wrong on all 4 points. It's no big deal - it happens to everyone at times.
I do believe we’re in now.
Where we’ll be seeded?
7-10 I would guess.
Win the SEC-7
Play Sunday 8-9
Lose Saturday and have some other weird things happen- 10
But we’re safely in now I do believe.
Where we’ll be seeded?
7-10 I would guess.
Win the SEC-7
Play Sunday 8-9
Lose Saturday and have some other weird things happen- 10
But we’re safely in now I do believe.
Here is a history of the First Four, as the NCAA calls it. Happy reading.
www.ncaa.com
The First Four of the NCAA tournament, explained
The First Four is the official start to March Madness. Here’s everything you need to know.
www.ncaa.com
Get unlimited access today.